Been monitoring 538 election polling. Both Senate & House has dropped significantly for the Dems.

For the Senate, the Dems had a comfortable win % IIRC somewhere in the mid-60s and now down to 50-50. The House has always been a mess for the Dems but much more so now.

My guess is, regardless of all the social consternation and IMO successful foreign policy, it still comes down to the economy under Biden's watch. Still hoping for a mixed Congress but won't be surprised in a GOP blowout.

It'll be interesting reading the post-vote surveys on what happened.

I don't think it will be too interesting to read about what happened - we know why, if that's what happens. More important to me is the future. Mainly, how quickly we devolve/dissolve. The GOP has already been vocal about what they want to do. When they get a tangible sign and the power to go forward with that agenda, I'm not sure I'm prepared for what that looks like. And it's mostly the cultural/performative/vindictive BS. That's barely even thinking about the policy implications (some of which I would probably agree with, moderately).

I don't know what to believe with polls. I see Trafalfar has NY governor tied. American Greatness has MI governor tied. Are these reliable pollsters or just conservative groups trying to drive a narrative? They seem to be flooding the rcp and 538 averages.

I imagine these polls are trying to do two things:

1. Deflate Democrats, try to dissuade them from voting from a perceived inevitability/lost cause

2. Set the stage for stolen election claims. Blue candidate won when all signs were pointing to red? FRAUD!!

Also, this seemed a pretty good summary:

Pretty much every poll right now looks like this:

If the election for were held today would you vote to...

Keep things the same 45%
Randomly smash everything 46%
Undecided 6%

(MOE 3%, 1024 LVs, 10/16-27/22)

— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) November 1, 2022

I think it is #2 all the way' Kari Lake basically said she would only accept the results of the election if she won. Kelly has a somewhat decent lead over Masters, and how many people will split the ticket?

I may have mentioned it earlier here, I really think these polls aren't capturing young voters, especially females. If they truly are motivated by Dobbs to come out and vote Dems could have a great day.

I don't know if those two are conservative pollster, but I know some of the election watchers have noticed that polls from conservative sources have been covered more in the national media, trying to build a red wave. But they themselves are not seeing such a wave. They see youth voting in large numbers and more Democratic early voting than in 2020 in most battleground states.

I sent in my Mother's and my absentee ballot in today. Not sure if it works the same way in other states, but in SC we can vote a straight party ticket, and don't have to vote in every race. It felt nice not having to vote for a single Republican :)

Interesting article and polling on public opinion on race based affirmative action in Higher Ed admissions.

There's a graphic about 1/3 down which discusses how poll/survey "wording greatly matters". There are 3 wordings.

The Supreme Court Could Overturn Another Major Precedent. This Time, Americans Might Agree. | FiveThirtyEight

Bottom-line to me. There was definitely a place and time for considering race. Racial diversity has increased and there may still be a need now, but it is less. How much less is the question that I struggle with.

As the SCOTUS line of questioning brought up, I don't think it's unreasonable to set some clear cut diversity targets for Universities. And from the lack of response to SCOTUS, I don't think there are any clear cut targets beyond "diversity is good and we need more" (correct me if I'm wrong). And if there are no targets, success (or lack of) can't be measured.

I don't know what the targets should be but there needs to be something, a range etc. Maybe not per institution but state wide. Maybe different tiers based on if you are a top institution or other. Maybe private institutions have more flexibility (but I'm guessing vast majority probably get government funding). Wonder how racially diverse European Universities are and can we learn from them.

There have been several polls recently in Georgia that have Walker either over Warnock or tied. But they have all come from Right-wing sources. I do think that there is a concerted effort to make any Democrat win look suspect.

Same here in Kentucky. I voted yesterday after signing an affidavit that said that I am unable to vote on election day, or any of the early voting days, because I work in a job where I will not be available to.

Straight party, but like 75% of the races are one party uncontested.

What I fear for this state is despite our governors status as a Dem, and his very high approval rate, that next year, when the governor's election comes around again, we're going to end up with another trumpist, better than bevin, option, and he will take the modestly reasonable status that the state has taken in the past 4-5 years and totally flush it down the toilet in an effort to be the next {insert wild, attention seeking, loud mouthed southern governor here}.

Yep. Beshear guided this state through a pandemic and 2 regional disasters 99% devoid of any political BS (and really only brought up politics when challenged by partisans, he never instigated it), acted like a real leader, conveyed over and over again that he was for every Kentuckian, and he's probably going to lose because he won't be running against Bevin and because people are still butthurt he didn't leave the state completely open during Covid.

I sure hope this buddy-buddy is for public consumption. And behind the scene's Biden is getting SA concessions.

On second thoughts, nah. It'll hurt the US some if Iran attacks SA but just as long as Iran doesn't conquer SA, we should be okay (until we no longer need the 5% of heavy crude imports). Let them fight it out.

US and Saudi Arabia concerned that Iran may be planning attack on energy infrastructure in Middle East | CNN Politics

I guess it was a factually correct statement but obviously not one to boast about.

White House deletes tweet after Twitter adds 'context' note - POLITICO
Good recovery though. But wouldn't be surprised if some last min mid-term ads gets some mileage out of this.


Unlike Trump, I doubt Biden signs off on all these tweets (or creates them) himself. I wonder who the person is that signs off on these.

You don't think Diamond Joe is sitting on the crapper, Tweeting out from the White House account?

SI

Seems like a whole lot of "not our problem".

If they aren't in your sphere of influence, they WILL be in your ideological opposites. As shitty as they are, better to be within our influence, than outside it. There's lots and lots of grey in there to deal with.

Destruction of any oil producing capabilities in the Middle East is definitely a "our problem." Global market prices affect us at the pump and everywhere else. F- the Saudis in general, but allowing Iran to harm global markets is not a good idea. Russia is already doing enough of that.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

What influence? They are gouging us on oil so they can influence elections. At some point we have to realize that it's a one-sided relationship.

I would have pulled out all our troops when they cut production.

Also the Saudis have been far more destructive to the United States than Iran has.

You think the price you're paying right now is gouging? Really? What happens when the US is totally cut off from any and all ME oil supply? You think the Chinese don't have an interest in that?

We'll just go back to being energy independent like we were under Trump.

Oh, I got into a FB discussion on THAT yesterday. Yeesh.

Remove the oil sanctions on Venezuela and Iran. Few more sellers in the market should help.

They need us more than we need them. Time to start acting like it.

Forget Iran. Agree with Venezuela.

We've missed the ship to enact change there, so let's do the best we can and get the 5% of SA heavy crude there. It's in (or closer to) our sphere of influence anyway.

How'd that go?

About as expected. A lot of "for a smart guy you're pretty stupid" kind of lines thrown in. I responded to what was basically a 1st Amendment/oil/immigration grab bag (accompanied by Trump, as Bob Ross, painting a red wave), got back a focus on oil. Supply/demand, look at profit margins not dollar amounts. Then when I did (and provided a link on how % profit for the last two quarters were the two highest by far of any since 2010), don't I know that oil isn't Exxon's only product? (Oil and oil accessories, I guess.) Then that the US had always been energy independent and a huge supplier. I countered with links to graphs that showed that we may be the largest supplier now, but even so that's only 20%...and, huh, we were actually out-produced by the Saudis all during GW's tenure...

More on getting back to being independent and actually exporting; I found a graph that, well, hrm -- we're currently exporting as much as we ever have. Oh, well FRACKING, and yada yada green stuff bad; I left it with "well, ok, go ahead and frack and drill -- but be prepared for your dreaded immigration when areas become increasingly uninhabitable!", let him know that despite the bits of condescension I felt quite secure regarding my level of intelligence, and everyone went back to watching baseball.

I mean, he had arguments ready, at least for oil. Which makes you pause when you haven't done any in-depth study. But the arguments didn't necessarily seem to jibe with what I was finding number-wise.

I suspect a number of these (semi-non-sequitur) arguments are provided for you if you watch a bevy of right wing TV.

SI

Well, just saw that he did apologize and says that he has data to show me and that he's just passionate about it because he's in the industry. Which I can understand -- but I still don't know that being in the industry lends itself to objectivity.

(Still no word on how any of this shows that Biden is leading us on the road to socialism though.)

If I had a penny for every ad I've heard that mentions "defund the police" I'd be rich. It's the gift that keeps on giving for the GOP, even if it means nothing today and as a practical matter, the voices in the Dem party who still think like that have no ability to make it happen.

I am pretty sure I know the answer to this but where there any stories about kids getting sick from eating fentanyl laced candy this week?

People on my subdivision's website are defending themselves against accusations of being "Halloween grinches" by essentially saying they did not believe the candy in the local stores were fetntanyl free.

Given what is actually in candy (and most processed foods, for that matter), jokes on them.

David DePape: Immigration officials say Paul Pelosi attacker was in US illegally | CNN Politics

Looks like the right have found their attack angle on this issue.

It doesn't even make sense. Drug dealers are in the business of making money. They aren't setting up in rented homes to give out free drugs. Also, users want to keep their stash. They are not going to give it up out of the kindness of their hearts, to make a new class of addicts. I believe most of them are like my cousin who, back in the 80s when I visited relatives in California, asked if I wanted any pot and when I said no, he said... "Good!"

Working from home, just saw an ad by "Citizens for Sanity" talking about how Biden = WW3. Pretty hilarious that these work.

I always find that the more sanitized sounding the group name, the crazier they are. "Citizens for Sanity", "Taxpayers for Freedom", "Parents Choice Coalition", "Family Values Group" - I have no idea if these are things. But I bet someone out there spun the word wheel and landed on something like this to cover up the crazy they are about.

SI

Just another sign of the Orwellian nightmare we are heading into. I look forward to seeing some lunatic as the first ever Minister for Peace in 2025 or so.

They don't have an issue with illegal immigration if the person is white.

They'll still use the angle when it helps them, even with a white guy. Or, even better, just mentioning it without any context and hoping their supporters pick up on it even if they erroneously assume something about where the guy is from.

build the wall and make canadia pay for it

I'm confused, is the argument that you should vote Republican because schools were shut down 2 years ago under a Republican president? And that having to be an involved parent for 2 years is too much?

I take pride in not holding grudges..but you're damn right it hits different when it comes to my kids. Being a mom is the only thing that truly matters to me & I am DONE. Have been for 2 years. Too many lines have been crossed & not enough ppl have stood up for our kids. Enough. https://t.co/BoPkIK2I9f

— Sage Steele (@sagesteele) November 3, 2022

This false premise that if we had done things differently kids wouldn't have been harmed in any way (whether from the virus itself or the effects of sheltering in place for however long) is so weird. We lived through a pandemic. It was always going to have adverse consequences. Yes, test scores are down and learning has been affected; we also likely traded some of that for less death early on and/or unknown long term affects. We were never going to find a mythical path to navigating it with no lasting problems.

Let's be honest, if we had kept kids in school, the same group would have been decrying the Democrats that put the kids in harm's way.

People (and especially parents) are angry and worn out after 3 year (amplified by a diet of social media - see the tweets above) and are going to lash out at whomever's convenient and whomever's telling them what they don't want to hear (i.e. the truth).

The next time I take Colin Cowherd's opinion seriously will be the first. That dude sucks turds in a ditch

Further, if it's as simple as "the economy, stupid" then I still don't see how you vote Republican. Look at the Stock Market thread. Everyone knew Trump was goosing the economy as much as humanly possible. We all knew there was a good chance it would explode a year or two after Biden got in office. But like COVID, the people who are there now gets blamed instead of the people who actually fumbled things to begin with.

I think, sadly, that 99% of the people that aren't 100% D or R really don't care about social issues (abortion, immigration, LGBTQ, etc) as real issues because it will literally never affect them. They'll say they support it, but if you got them drunk they'd tell you an extra 50 cents for a Kind bar mattered more than a random gay person in Alabama being able to marry.

I disagree with this. It is true that Biden doesn't get all the blame, but 2 years in, he gets the majority of the blame for the economy (let's say 80-20). He made his choices (including renominating Powell, including believing in transitory inflation etc.).

For Covid, there was a stat that like-for-like (e.g. approx. # of months), Biden had more deaths even after a vaccine was available.

Overall, Biden is certainly better than Trump. But I'm not going to absolve him for this economy (either through his actions or inactions).

The Biden Presidency - 2020
 

Edited to avoid confrontation

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As I am often misquoted, please provide the link of what you think I said?

Darn, too late. I would still like to see the quote you attributed to me so I can review and make sure what you purport applies here is really in proper context. Link it.

The Biden Presidency - 2020
 

Please just remove your reply and quote so I don’t have to start a months long back and forth of obfuscation and become victim of energy vampiring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh look! Another thread about to be trashed by Edward!

I'll take this as you couldn't find the quote.

No problem. Everyone makes mistakes once in a while.

(But if you ever do find the quote, we can always take it to the other thread and not bother everyone)

Just responding to a question directed at me. But apparently just a simple mistake. np

I don't know what this means/whether it will translate on Election Day, but this thread is pretty interesting - although it does come from a Dem source, presumably with accurate info (?).

The unprecedented GOP campaign to game/corrupt the polling averages continues. Here's how many different GOP pollsters have dropped +3/+4 R polls in each state in recent days:

AZ 10
GA 9
PA 8
NV 6
WA 6
NH 5
NC 4
OH 3 (but Cygnal has done 5 alone!)https://t.co/V2fRqhPNd0

— Simon Rosenberg (@SimonWDC) November 3, 2022

The upshot being that Republicans are concentrating on paying pollsters to drop R-leaning poll after poll to skew the averages to appear like a red wave is coming with momentum, when the reality of early voting is that Dems are outdoing their 2020 performance. Whether that continues or election day momentum swings enough to the Rs... we'll see. But this has me hopeful.

I guess my question is how accurate are the D/R early voting numbers.

They babble quite a bit but 538 says below on early voting.

The Case For A Democratic Surprise On Election Night | FiveThirtyEight
On his polling methodology ...


Beats me. My guess is the Republicans do have momentum and better than 50-50 that they will get both chambers.

I would imagine R vote turnout will be heavier on election day since the Rs have spend the last 6 years talking about how early voting and non-election day voting is a fraud.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of that matters relative to what they have done in the past as I think the GOP holds a pretty big voting day advantage.

Just to give an example, Jon Ralston was an amazing read throughout the 2020 election cycle and here's his in-depth take on how the Nevada numbers look right now:
The early voting blog, 2022 – The Nevada Independent

I think there's some credence to the GOP pollsters giving themselves a bump or maybe just not factoring things in that they know are relevant (polls getting noisier and getting more red because younger people don't answer their phones type stuff). But I just don't know. The CW has been "early voting numbers don't matter" for a while now but wisdom keeps being anything but conventional the last few election cycles and if the Dems do keep the Senate, for instance, that will be one of the narratives. If they keep the House, then it'll most likely be lost to the political violence story that follows. Both parties seem to act like the close races we expect are the close races with major surrogates going to the places you'd think like Pennsylvania. It seems a little odd that Trump is going to Florida and Ohio, two places solidly red, but Trump is going to go where Trump wants to go, not where the party wants him to go.

SI

The only reason I could see the Rs cooking the books with the polls is so they can claim fraud. I just don't see it. I think Dobbs peaked too early and a lot of suburban women in places like PA, GA, Ohio, etc...are pissed their grocery bill is $35 higher each week.

That's my expectation, unfortunately

SI

Probably. I did see some analysis that Nevada looks bad. Early voting is essentially tied and you have to expect an R advantage on election day. So that's one state that is likely going red.

This article claims that Dems lead NV early voting by more than they did in 2018, when they won.

Nevada early voting shows Democrats hold lead over GOP in Clark, Washoe counties | Las Vegas Review-Journal

He nails it

He nails a lot of things.

Hmm. I read some twitter thread that showed Dems lead in Clark was less than 1000 votes and that's not good when you factor in what to come on Tuesday. I believe they were looking at 2020 comps, not 2018.

Homeland Security Admits It Tried to Manufacture Fake Terrorists for Trump

Sounds like the taxpayer got good value for the money spent to create those narratives in Portland.

They're only saying that now because it's the Biden administration and it's the mid-term elections!

Remember when we lived in a world where things like that mattered?

Actually, I'm not sure when. Reagan's Iran-Contra? Possibly Clinton's impeachment (when impeachment still meant something)?

McCarthy's plans if/when he becomes speaker.

Devil's in the details (and the execution of the policies).

Kevin McCarthy outlines Republicans' agenda days before midterms | CNN Politics
I like getting control of the border but do see "fix the broken immigration system" is a key component and so should be acted on at the same time (vs later). Can't be much worse than the not much effort from Kamala.

Yes, there should be an investigation on the pull-out. Not if there was a need to pull-out, but how it happened. Did anyone lose their jobs over it?

I doubt anything new will come out of additional investigations on the Covid outbreak. Good for political theatre vs China so sure, go for it.

I don't get the third item of "admin has dealt with parents and school board meetings". Whatever that is, doubt it rises to the level of a congressional investigation.

Accountability is good. For now, I doubt he has much leverage in reducing our support to Ukraine (and hopefully the lame duck congress will vote a nice farewell package). If there is a drawn out stalemate, I can see him using this to "encourage" negotiations.

Haven't read much about this possibility but I can see it as political revenge and buildup to 2024.

Sounds good to me but need to know the details.

Another sounds good to me but need to know the details. But it is more than just gas prices.

Obviously, political hypocrisy here. Par for the course. Will we ever get the hero(es) we need to reduce the national debt-to-GDP ratio? Probably not.

Below is likely true.

I'm sure the first order will be a bill to prosecute Hunter Biden and investigate the DOJ. The same one that they were weaponizing to try and win elections. The second one will be an impeachment hearing because Biden tripped over a wire and therefore has dementia.

We can't go by anything but the exact text of the bill so I'm not sure why you added his quotes and such. You have already set your precedent that we only can go by the actual context of the bills themselves. SMH

I have said (paraphrased) "go with what was written in the bill" like what was written in the "Don't Say Gay" bill that was passed.

However, in this case, there is no "bill" that has been passed? So not tracking on why I can't quote a CNN article?

Jill Biden's a WITCH!!

Ex-MLB star Lenny Dykstra pins Phillies' World Series struggles on Jill Biden's appearance | Fox News

How does the US Congress pass a bill requiring Mexico to allow immigrants to stay in their country until the US is ready to adjudicate their cases?

Easy, just go back to a solution someone on this board advocated, tell them you'll execute them at the border if they cross. Plain and simple. No questions, no age or gender limits. Just straight executions at will. That will teach them who's boss.

By threatening them with border patrol violence and taking away their kids so they make the "correct decision" to remain in Mexico? Can't make an omelet without committing a few humans rights violations. You know, the Stephen Miller plan - he did not zee this as a problem, more of a feature than a bug.

SI

Al Franken's picture? Little things used to matter never mind things like manufacturing fake terrorists.

In retrospect, a sincere apology and public slap-down should have been good enough. That only happened in 2018 (thought it was further back). I think the "when it mattered" was further back.

I know how this might work for the immigrants, but if Mexico says, nah, fuck that, how does a GOP Congress write legislation that makes them?

Well done sir.

If anyone thinks the GOP strategy the next two years will be anything other than BS hearings and revenge politics I’ve got a bridge to sell them. Get ready for MTG to be front and center yelling about Fauci and Hunter for the next two years. Their supporters will love it because governance has become a sport for them where the goal is to own the libs. Nothing else matters.

Also GTFO with Afghanistan. That was always going to be messy and if anything it’s on trump and pompeo for negotiating with the taliban and leaving the incoming administration in a terrible spot. .

There is no doubt Trump set the stage and somewhat force Biden's hand to withdraw.

But are you also saying Trump & his admin are the primary cause of the messy withdrawal e.g. Jun-Jul-Aug 2021?

Absolutely. Trump forced his hand not only with the timing, but by not working at all with the incoming administration on coordinating and possibly outright sabotaging the new admin.

It was always going to be messy. Do you think it would have been better under trump? What could Biden have done significantly differently?

Disagree on timing. Trump said May. Biden pushed it to Sep. Biden could have continued to push it if he wanted to.

I don't know if the withdrawal would have been better under Trump. It could have been worse (e.g. more US deaths) but it could have been better also. If the question was could Biden have negotiated a better withdrawal agreement in Doha 2020, probably yes.

An article that discusses the withdrawal including what could have been done differently. Plenty of blame to go around but Trump & admin is not the major culprit in the actual withdrawal. I think the quote below sums it up for me.

A year on, everybody is responsible for the Afghanistan withdrawal tragedy - Vox

If Biden pushed the deadline a second time that would have shown bad faith and possibly lead to tensions with the Taliban. You are never leaving a country after 20 years of military occupation cleanly, especially when the prior administration set you up for failure.

Judging by the way he pulled out of northern Syria, abandoning our Kurdish allies to Turkey and all the ISIS prisoners they were detaining, I don't see any likelihood Afghanistan would have been handled better.

It was a poison pill left for Biden, plain and simple. Likely orchestrated by Pompeo, Trump is too stupid to set that up. To even meet with the Taliban and legitimize them on the world scale should have been an impeachable offense.

And he wanted to bring them to Camp David on September 11th.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

yeah, but Biden fell off his bike that one time...

What happens when they start imprisoning US citizens and kidnapping their children? Maybe Biden can watch the Prince fuck his wife too. This relationship seems to be great for both sides.

New: U.S. citizen Carly Morris was detained by authorities in Saudi Arabia yesterday, @thefreedomi says. Her eight-year-old daughter’s whereabouts remain unknown. https://t.co/W1LFFh5IVY

— Elizabeth Hagedorn (@ElizHagedorn) November 8, 2022

What are talking about? Entire US policy is now based on one part of a story that's totally unrelated to anything?

Just putting this here to open discussion. After last night, what are your thoughts?

We may have to put aside ‘Dems don’t have a deep bench if Biden doesn’t run in 2024’ conventional wisdom after tonight.

Shapiro
Whitmer
Newsom
Fetterman

And if he wins, Warnock.

Not a good night for Harris or Buttigieg stans. Much better & more tested alternatives out there.

— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) November 9, 2022

My thoughts? Whitmer and Newsom are interesting choices. Fetterman and Shapiro ran great campaign and possibly have a strong future, but they would have to basically turn around and start running right now. I don't see that happening. Warnock maybe most intriguing. I would say that commercial of his ex-wife claiming he ran over her foot is not going to play well on a National stage.

I don't think any of those names are ready for a prime time Presidential run in 2024. Maybe Newsom, but ideally these are some names for 2028 or beyond. And I'm not sure how many of those names really have national potential.

SI

I think Mayor Pete is still the future star of the party. Newsome is the only one on that list I can see getting traction.

Mayor Pete needs to win an election other than mayor for the 4th largest city in Indiana.

How do you come to that conclusion? Newsom is the Governor of the biggest state in the country (basically a country in itself), and is prominent on the National stage. Whitmer is entering a second term as a Governor of a large mid-western state and just oversaw the flipping of her House and Senate to the Dems. If that doesn't prepare you for a National stage, what in the heck does? They both have way more a resume than Obama did before he became President.

Newsome has specifically said he won't run. Take a politician at their word, I know, but he still said it.

I'd like to see Jon Stewart throw his hat in the ring.

I agree. I think the left needs someone who can actually give it back with passion and facts. It comes down to someone with camera time. As much crap as Zeliniski(sp) took for being an actor and comedian, but that's exactly who the left needs to be putting up. I know Franken is just now hitting the circuit with his book, but someone like him could really connect.